That was mostly the Spaniards, 300 to 200 years earlier (and French fur traders). The population of the original 13 colonies and the expanding American nation did far more inter-breeding and integration of Native Americans than destruction.

Besides, this is just one small and comparatively mild and compassionate example of what Europeans have been doing non-stop for thousands of years, and what they have continued to do long after. They have created virtually all the geopolitical and socioeconomic problems the world is struggling with today, giving us virtually all of our basis for conflicts and war. Yet they (even nations we have liberated or protected, aided or outright supported, and even reorganized and put back on their feet, in some cases more than once) still sit there acting pompous and asinine on their high horse, telling other people they are doing it wrong.

Yet they (even nations we have liberated or protected, aided or outright supported, and even reorganized and put back on their feet, in some cases more than once) still sit there acting pompous and asinine on their high horse, telling other people they are doing it wrong.

What's the difference between the bolded section (liberation, protection, support and reorganization) and the latter section (acting pompous, telling other people they are doing it wrong)?

Since the Second World War I perceive America as being the worst at telling other countries how to operate, it's only been fairly recently that I have seen anything like a World attitude from the US. I don't think being humble comes easily to your country on the world stage.

WWII happened yesterday on the time scale that nations evolve. The U.S. has done nothing but step up to fill the void left by the effective self-destruction of Europe, to keep Western Civilization from collapsing. If that act caused the U.S. to act like Europe (for example, sustaining Britain's varoius ham-handed partionings of peoples across the globe, or various European countries' exploitative economic relationships), that's Europe's fault more than the U.S.'s. All we wanted was Europe to leave the Americas alone, then you had to go and start those World Wars. The present situation is entirely the fault of Europe (and the Commies).

Well, I don't know how to argue with views like that, and I can't see there would be a point anyway. I don't have any problems with the America I know, but I don't like the sound of your personal America. Sounds a bit authoritarian to outside countries to be honest.

Well, I don't know how to argue with views like that, and I can't see there would be a point anyway. I don't have any problems with the America I know, but I don't like the sound of your personal America. Sounds a bit authoritarian to outside countries to be honest.

No, authoritarian is what people like Juniper are telling us to be, saying we need to disarm the population, regulate their food intake, take away more of the fruits of their labor, and take all kinds of measures to manipulate and control them. That's authoritarianism.

Well, I don't know how to argue with views like that, and I can't see there would be a point anyway. I don't have any problems with the America I know, but I don't like the sound of your personal America. Sounds a bit authoritarian to outside countries to be honest.

No, authoritarian is what people like Juniper are telling us to be, saying we need to disarm the population, regulate their food intake, take away more of the fruits of their labor, and take all kinds of measures to manipulate and control them. That's authoritarianism.

Hmm. Of those I have only advocated disarming the people. That is because I know a little statistics. I am more likely to get shot by some yob, then by my state. It's quite funny actually. I don't do this for European countries, but my wife is going to the US, so I was looking for a hotel to book in a rather dangerous city, and I remembered I should be quite careful. Wouldn't want to pluck her down in the middle of a war zone, would I? while chicago is at 50+ so far this year, we just hit 13 in London (2.7 mill vs 8 mil in the in the city). Tower Hamlets? like a nursery compared to chicago. And English people are frightened of big bad London.

Otherwise, regulating food? I bet even you accept some regulation. I also support lower simpler taxes, and have said so repeatedly.

You apparently think firearm regulation is the only difference between Chicago and London that could influence rates of homicide or violent crime. Obviously, you don't know jack shit about statistics.

You would spin a hamster wheel quite contentedly under communism and buy into whatever they tell you to think, as long as they give you a smartphone and laptop, and a warm flat for your authorized spawn.

You apparently think firearm regulation is the only difference between Chicago and London that could influence rates of homicide or violent crime. Obviously, you don't know jack shit about statistics.

You would spin a hamster wheel quite contentedly under communism and buy into whatever they tell you to think, as long as they give you a smartphone and laptop, and a warm flat for your authorized spawn.

nope, i don't. As I have said repeatedly it is one of many factors (not, as you seem to think, zero of many factors). We have a diverse poor population here too, into ultra violence.

So we agree it's one of many factors. I say it's not a dominant one (in the statistical sense) according to all the credible studies which have been done. In fact, nobody has even been able to show a cause and effect relationship, or even a valid, statistically significant correlation between gun regulation or the availability of firearms and anything (except the rate at which firearms happen to be the weapon used, rather than something else, in various crimes). It hasn't been shown to increase homicides, to increase violent crime, or to have any other negative effect. Other drivers of violence and crime statistically eclipse its significance. Yet you continue to bang this gong with your forehead while simultaneously claiming know something about statistics. How do you reconcile that?

I say it's obvious that you don't believe the science. You believe, because you have been brainwashed to believe it, that guns (as opposed to wrong-thinking people) cause death and violence. Despite being educated and generally rational, you are unable to overcome having been programmed with this belief.

So we agree it's one of many factors. I say it's not a dominant one (in the statistical sense) according to all the credible studies which have been done. In fact, nobody has even been able to show a cause and effect relationship, or even a valid, statistically significant correlation between gun regulation or the availability of firearms and anything (except the rate at which firearms happen to be the weapon used, rather than something else, in various crimes). It hasn't been shown to increase homicides, to increase violent crime, or to have any other negative effect. Other drivers of violence and crime statistically eclipse its significance. Yet you continue to bang this gong with your forehead while simultaneously claiming know something about statistics. How do you reconcile that?

I say it's obvious that you don't believe the science. You believe, because you have been brainwashed to believe it, that guns (as opposed to wrong-thinking people) cause death and violence. Despite being educated and generally rational, you are unable to overcome having been programmed with this belief.

to say "wrong thinking people" cause death and violence really doesn't answer the question now, does it? so, do you know of studies that suggest what is the dominant factor? the interesting thing is that other factors (poverty etc) may be much harder to solve.

So we agree it's one of many factors. I say it's not a dominant one (in the statistical sense) according to all the credible studies which have been done. In fact, nobody has even been able to show a cause and effect relationship, or even a valid, statistically significant correlation between gun regulation or the availability of firearms and anything (except the rate at which firearms happen to be the weapon used, rather than something else, in various crimes). It hasn't been shown to increase homicides, to increase violent crime, or to have any other negative effect. Other drivers of violence and crime statistically eclipse its significance. Yet you continue to bang this gong with your forehead while simultaneously claiming know something about statistics. How do you reconcile that?

I say it's obvious that you don't believe the science. You believe, because you have been brainwashed to believe it, that guns (as opposed to wrong-thinking people) cause death and violence. Despite being educated and generally rational, you are unable to overcome having been programmed with this belief.

to say "wrong thinking people" cause death and violence really doesn't answer the question now, does it? so, do you know of studies that suggest what is the dominant factor? the interesting thing is that other factors (poverty etc) may be much harder to solve.

Nevertheless, if they are the causes, that is what must be addressed. If such studies do not exist (which I seriously doubt), then no cost should be spared to conduct and/or validate them. Knee-jerking in a way that violates the Constitutional rights of half the citizenry is NOT an acceptable option. Neither is punishing children for representing guns in their play, while completely ignoring the developmental psychology leading to violent proclivities.

Moreover, you act like taking guns away is going to solve something, or help. The same studies indicate that it will not. It's not a causal factor and there is no correlation. You believe, for unscientific reasons, that it will. A rational, educated, thinking person understands that the same violence will continue, simply using other means. The underlying drivers must be altered.

The people wanting the guns taken away are people who want to force other unwanted authoritarian measures on the citizenry and want them disarmed so they can't resist. This "gun violence" (the use of the very phrase being thought control, embedding in weak minds the idea that guns cause violence) crap is just being used as an excuse to do it.

Nevertheless, if they are the causes, that is what must be addressed. If such studies do not exist (which I seriously doubt), then no cost should be spared to conduct and/or validate them. Knee-jerking in a way that violates the Constitutional rights of half the citizenry is NOT an acceptable option. Neither is punishing children for representing guns in their play, while completely ignoring the developmental psychology leading to violent proclivities.

Moreover, you act like taking guns away is going to solve something, or help. The same studies indicate that it will not. It's not a causal factor and there is no correlation. You believe, for unscientific reasons, that it will. A rational, educated, thinking person understands that the same violence will continue, simply using other means. The underlying drivers must be altered.

The people wanting the guns taken away are people who want to force other unwanted authoritarian measures on the citizenry and want them disarmed so they can't resist. This "gun violence" (the use of the very phrase being thought control, embedding in weak minds the idea that guns cause violence) crap is just being used as an excuse to do it.

There isn't one cause. Why are we ring fencing this one cause? why shouldn't we look at that?

Now you cite some studies. I have read studies to the opposite. it is rather difficult to have conclusive proof either way is this is really hard to study. but here is the key to what you said,

Quote:

You believe, for unscientific reasons, that it will. A rational, educated, thinking person understands that the same violence will continue, simply using other means. The underlying drivers must be altered.

I agree. The motivation to commit the same violent acts will remain if you simply take away guns. but, will that lead to less deaths? It is harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.

And stop painting people who oppose guns with one brush. your characterization is just broad and sloppy.